ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Greenhouse gas implications of using coal for transportation: Life cycle

assessment of coal-to-liquids, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen pathways
Paulina Jaramillo a,, Constantine Samaras a,b, Heather Wakeley a, Kyle Meisterling b
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA
b
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: Using coal to produce transportation fuels could improve the energy security of the United States by
Received 6 August 2008 replacing some of the demand for imported petroleum. Because of concerns regarding climate change
Accepted 2 March 2009 and the high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with conventional coal use, policies to
Available online 8 April 2009
encourage pathways that utilize coal for transportation should seek to reduce GHGs compared to
Keywords: petroleum fuels. This paper compares the GHG emissions of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels to the emissions
Coal of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) powered with coal-based electricity, and to the emissions of a
Transportation fuel cell vehicle (FCV) that uses coal-based hydrogen. A life cycle approach is used to account for fuel
Greenhouse gases cycle and use-phase emissions, as well as vehicle cycle and battery manufacturing emissions. This
analysis allows policymakers to better identify benefits or disadvantages of an energy future that
includes coal as a transportation fuel. We find that PHEVs could reduce vehicle life cycle GHG emissions
by up to about one-half when coal with carbon capture and sequestration is used to generate the
electricity used by the vehicles. On the other hand, CTL fuels and coal-based hydrogen would likely lead
to significantly increased emissions compared to PHEVs and conventional vehicles using petroleum-
based fuels.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The United States (US) Energy Information Administration
(EIA) forecasts that by 2030, crude-oil demand in the US will be 14
million barrels per day, down from 15 million barrels per day in
2006. Fifty percent of this crude, however, will still be imported
from oil-rich countries, some of which have highly volatile
political and social situations (DOE, 2009). In addition to energy
security concerns regarding dependency on foreign fuel, petro-
leum combustion from the transportation sector is and will
remain one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in the country. The US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) estimates that in 2006, about 28% of total US GHG
emissions came from the transportation sector (EPA, 2008).
The search for alternative transportation fuels that would
reduce US dependence on foreign sources of oil (especially from
volatile regions) is ongoing. Interest has also grown in finding
alternatives that help reduce the GHG emissions associated with
the use of transportation fuels. Biofuels, especially ethanol, are the
alternative fuels that have gained the most attention and support:
the US Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of (2007)
requires fuel producers to use a minimum of 136 billion liters of
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 412 268 7889; fax: +1 412 268 7813.
E-mail address: pjaramil@andrew.cmu.edu (P. Jaramillo).
biofuels in 2022 (EISA, 2007). Coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels have also
been of interest recently, and although subsidies for these fuels
were not provided in the EISA energy bill (2007), they had been
discussed earlier in the spring of 2007 (US House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, 2007). Coal could also be used to produce
electricity that could then be used to power plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEV) or to produce hydrogen to be used in fuel
cell vehicles (FCV).
Coal is the most abundant fossil fuel in the US and it is generally
reported that there is a 250-year supply of coal at current
consumption rates. A report by the National-Research-Council
(2007) states that it is not possible to confirm this 250-year supply
often reported, but coal reserves are probably sufficient to meet
coal demand at current rates for the next century. Even if coal is not
as abundant as generally reported, using coal to provide some
transportation energy could help reduce the dependence on foreign
sources of petroleum. However, in determining policy priorities, it
is important to estimate how the life cycle GHG emissions
associated with different vehicle pathways using coal for transpor-
tation compare to each other, and how they compare with the life
cycle GHG emissions of petroleum-based fuels.
In this paper, a comparison of the life cycle GHG emissions of
CTL fuels, coal-to-electricity for PHEVs, coal-to-hydrogen for FCVs,
and petroleum-based fuels is presented. The final functional unit
is one kilometer (km) traveled in each vehicle type and the
impacts estimated are grams (g) of CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq) per

0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2690 P. Jaramillo et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695

Use in IC
Coal-to- Liquid Fuel Engine
Liquids Plant Transport Vehicle

Fuels (NG,Diesel,
Residual Oil,
Hydrogen)

Electricity

Coal-to- Hydrogen
Hydrogen Gasification/ Hydrogen
Coal Use in FCV
Plant Liquefaction Transport

Coal Power Transmission

of Electricity Use in PHEV
Plant

Petroleum-
Based Vehicle and
Gasoline Battery

Feedstock for
Life cycle stage which upstream Equipment
System
analysed, Direct emissions were impacts,adapted
Boundary Key:
emissions included adapted from other from other studies
studies

Fig. 1. Study system boundary of included processes.

km. Global warming potentials for CO2-eq were estimated with a
100-year time horizon (IPCC, 2001). The life cycle stages of fuels
included in this comparison start with the production of the coal/
petroleum and end with the use of the fuels in the vehicle, as
shown in the study system boundary (Fig. 1) and described in
more detail in the following sections. While the use-phase and
fuel cycle impacts account for the majority of emissions, we also
include the vehicle cycle impacts from materials production,
vehicle manufacturing, and disposal from the GREET 2.7 model
over a vehicle life of 240,000 km (Burnham et al., 2008). A PHEV
has additional impacts due to the materials and manufacturing of
the larger storage batteries (Samaras and Meisterling, 2008), so
these impacts are also included in our analysis.
2. Coal-to-liquids method
Conventional vehicles can be fueled with liquid fuels (gasoline
and diesel) produced from coal. The life cycle of these liquid fuels
include: the production, processing, and transport of the coal; the
emissions at the CTL plant (including the emissions from the life
cycle of the electricity used at these plants); the transport of
the liquid fuels from the plant to the fueling stations; and finally
the combustion of the liquid fuels. A brief description of the
method used to calculate the life cycle GHG emissions of CTL fuels
will be presented in the following paragraphs; for more details
refer to Jaramillo et al. (2008).
The GHG emissions associated with the mining, processing,
and transport of the coal are obtained from Jaramillo et al. (2007).
Jaramillo et al. used available (aggregate) emissions and fuel data
from coal mines throughout the US. Since no data for individual
mines are available, the average mining emissions for coal mined
throughout the US as given in Jaramillo et al., were used. No CTL
plants have been constructed in the US and there is significant
uncertainty associated with the location of such plants: they could
be located near coal mines to eliminate the need to transport coal.
Coal mining regions, however, are not necessarily located near the
infrastructure to transport the refined liquid fuel. For this reason,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Jaramillo et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695
CTL plants may actually be located near oil refining infrastructure,
and the coal would be transported to the region. Given this
uncertainty of plant location, the average transport emissions,
which represent coal transported from mines to US power plants,
as presented by Jaramillo et al. (2007), were used for this paper.
Jaramillo et al. (2007) showed that coal transport emissions
represent a small percentage of the life cycle GHG emissions of
coal, so variations in coal transport distances to the one used for
this analysis are not expected to affect the results presented in
this paper. According to Jaramillo et al., the total emission factors
from coal mining, processing, and transport range between 3.5
and 7.1 tonnes CO2-eq per terajoule (TJ) of coal (weighted average
for coal produced and transported in the US is 5.0 tonnes CO2-eq
per TJ (Jaramillo et al., 2007). This emission factor can then be
converted to tonnes CO2-eq per TJ of liquid fuel produced using
the efficiency of the CTL plant, as described below.
CTL plants use coal to produce liquid fuels via the Fischer–
Tropsch (FT) reaction. The conventional CTL plant design produces
more diesel than gasoline. However, catalysts can be added to the
plant to upgrade some of the diesel and waxes produced in the FT-
reaction into gasoline. Since, demand for gasoline is higher than
demand for diesel in the US (DOE, 2007), this maximum gasoline
production plant is used in this analysis. Jaramillo et al. found,
however, that the two plant set-ups would result in the same
allocated emissions for gasoline and diesel (Jaramillo et al., 2008).
The overall efficiency of the CTL plant is around 52% on a higher
heating value (HHV) basis. Inputs and outputs to this plant are
shown in Table 1 (Bechtel, 1993). The report cited used Illinois #6
Coal and Wyoming Powder River Basin Coal in the performance
models, and it was found that the type of coal did not significantly
change the performance characteristics of the plants. Since no
other data is available, it is assumed that the CTL efficiency
presented in the Bechtel report is representative of CTL plants that
could be built in the US.
CTL plants are ideal candidates for carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS). These plants have to separate the CO2 from
the gas stream before it enters the FT-reactor, and the only
requirement for CCS would be to add CO2 compression to the
plant so that it can be then placed in (future) sequestration
infrastructure. This would imply an energy penalty, as electricity
is needed to perform this compression: between 80 and 140 kWh
per tonne of CO2 compressed (Jaramillo et al., 2008).
As shown in Table 1, electricity is used at the CTL plants. Our
model includes the life cycle emissions from this electricity used.
In our high-emissions scenario, a life cycle emissions factor of
950 kg CO2-eq per MWh is used (Samaras and Meisterling, 2008).
For our low-emissions scenario, CTL plants would buy electricity
from low-carbon sources with a life cycle GHG emission factor of
200 kg CO2-eq per MWh (Samaras and Meisterling, 2008). A CTL
plant purchasing exclusively low-carbon electricity represents a
very optimistic scenario and probably not very realistic. It is used
Table 1
CTL plant inputs and outputs (Bechtel, 1993).
CTL plant inputs
Coal (tonnes/day) 16,900
Methanol (tonnes/day) 190
Butanes (tonnes/day) 400
Purchased electricity (no. CCS) (MWh/day) 1350
Purchased electricity (80% CCS) (MWh/day) 3750
CTL plant outputs
Propylene (TJ/day) 13
Propane (LPG) (TJ/day) 6.5
Gasoline (TJ/day) 200
Diesel (TJ/day) 55
Carbon lost (tonnes/day) 7100
2691
here, however, to calculate a lower bound for the life cycle
emissions of CTL fuels.
Adding the emission factors from coal mining, processing, and
transport, with the emissions from the CTL plant and from the
electricity consumed at the CTL plant, results in a mine-to-plant
emission factor. Since, CTL plants produce more than one product,
this mine-to-plant emission factor needs to be allocated among
the co-products. The allocation method presented in the GREET
model is used: allocation is done by using the energy content of
the co-products (Wang et al., 2007). It was found however, that
due to the nature of the allocation method in which refinery level
data is used, once total allocated emissions are converted to an
emissions factor, all co-products have very similar emission
factors (Jaramillo et al., 2008).
To obtain a mine-to-tank emission factor for gasoline and
diesel from coal, the emissions from the transport of these refined
fuels to the refueling stations and the emissions from the
combustion must be added to the mine-to-plant emission factor
previously described. Using gasoline and diesel transport assump-
tions from the GREET model (Wang et al., 2007) and the energy
transportation data book (Davis and Diegel, 2006), as presented in
Jaramillo et al. (2008) it was found that the emissions from
transport add between 17 and 20 g of CO2 per liter of gasoline and
between 21 and 25 g of CO2 per liter of diesel. This includes the
total life cycle emissions of the fuels used during transport,
reported in Table 3. The mine-to-tank emission factor for our
high-emissions scenario (no CCS, high-emission electricity) CTL
plant is 3.5 kg CO2-eq per liter of gasoline and 4.1 kg CO2-eq per
liter of diesel. If 80% CCS is performed at the plant and a low-
carbon electricity source is used, the mine-to-tank emission
factors would be 1.2 kg CO2-eq per liter of gasoline and 1.4 kg CO2-
eq per liter of diesel. Current petroleum-based gasoline and diesel
have well-to-tank GHG emissions of 0.59 and 0.62 kg CO2-eq per
liter, respectively (Wang et al., 2007).
Gasoline and diesel from coal have a carbon content of 18.3
and 18.9 tonnes of carbon per TJ, respectively, and an energy
content of 30.7 and 36.2 megajoules (MJ) per liter, respectively
(Bechtel, 1993; EPA, 2006c). These data were used to determine
the combustion emissions of the fuels, which are then added to
the upstream emissions to obtain a total life cycle emission factor
of 5.5 kg of CO2-eq per liter of CTL-gasoline and 6.6 kg of CO2-eq
per liter of CTL-diesel in the high-emissions scenario; and 3.2 kg of
CO2-eq per liter of CTL-gasoline and 3.9 kg of CO2-eq per liter of
CTL-diesel in the low-emissions scenario. Current petroleum-
based gasoline and diesel have life cycle GHG emissions of 2.9 and
3.3 kg CO2-eq per liter, respectively (EPA, 2006b; Wang et al.,
2007).
To convert these life cycle GHG emissions of CTL fuels (and
conventional petroleum fuels) into a number that can be
compared to the life cycle GHG emissions of PHEV and hydrogen
FCV, the efficiency of the vehicle must be taken into consideration.
The Toyota Corolla, with an efficiency of 14.5 km per liter (DOE-
EPA, 2007), was chosen to represent a conventional gasoline
vehicle. In the US, the diesel-powered Toyota Corolla is not
available. In Europe, where both the gasoline- and diesel-powered
Corolla are available, the diesel model is 40% more efficient
(Toyota, 2007). This 40% increased efficiency is also observed in
Volkswagen 2006 models with gasoline and diesel versions sold
in the US (DOE-EPA, 2007). For this reason, an efficiency of 20 km
per liter was used for the diesel vehicle.
Gasoline (from CTL, or petroleum) could also be used in a
conventional hybrid vehicle such as the Toyota Prius. This vehicle
has the same functionality as the Toyota Corolla, but has better
efficiency (19.1 km per liter) (EPA, 2006a). The life cycle of CTL-
gasoline and petroleum-based gasoline were also modeled using
this vehicle efficiency.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2692 P. Jaramillo et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695
As previously mentioned, the vehicle impacts were included in
this study. For CTL fuels and petroleum-based fuels, the impacts
from conventional internal combustion (IC) engines and hybrid
vehicles were added to the fuel impacts. These impacts were
obtained from the GREET 2.7 model (Burnham et al., 2008) and
levelized to a per km basis assuming a vehicle life of 240,000 km.
IC engine vehicle and hybrid vehicles contribute 31 and 30 g CO2-
eq per km, respectively, to the life cycle of CTL and petroleum-
based fuels. If a battery replacement is required for the hybrid
vehicle, impacts would be slightly higher.
3. Plug-in hybrid method
A PHEV couples a traditional hybrid electric vehicle with a
larger storage battery that allows electricity from the grid to
power a portion of vehicle travel (Bradley and Frank, 2009).
The PHEV modeled uses a lithium-ion storage battery to travel
solely by electricity until the battery is depleted to a 25% state of
charge, then operates as a traditional gasoline–electric hybrid
vehicle (Kromer and Heywood, 2007). Plug-in hybrids can have
various battery capacities that result in different electric ranges.
This analysis assumes two cases: a plug-in hybrid built on a
Toyota Prius platform in a parallel configuration with an all-
electric range of 20 km (PHEV20), and one with a range of 60 km
(PHEV60). To determine average life cycle GHG emissions from
PHEVs, impacts are estimated from combustion and fuel cycle
impacts for both, electricity and petroleum-based gasoline, as well
as from the vehicle cycle and storage battery production.
3.1. Impacts from electricity
The life cycle GHG emissions from PHEVs depend heavily on
the source of electricity used to charge the batteries (Samaras and
Meisterling, 2008). This analysis assumes two separate scenarios
for electricity generation used to charge PHEVs—a high-emissions
scenario that assumes bituminous coal in a pulverized coal power
plant and a low-emissions scenario that assumes bituminous coal
in an integrated gasification-combined cycle power plant with
80% carbon capture and sequestration (IGCC w/ CCS). While an
electricity generation portfolio generally includes other technol-
ogies besides coal, we use these scenarios to illustrate potential
GHGs from PHEVs and to compare vehicle pathways when coal is
utilized as a transportation fuel.
Using the carbon and heat content of bituminous coal and
adjusting for the fraction oxidized, coal releases 87.7 tonnes of CO2
per TJ of combusted fuel (HHV) (EPA, 2006c). Assuming a 39%
pulverized coal plant efficiency (Rubin et al., 2004), this yields
810 kg CO2-eq per MWh of electricity at the plant gate. Additional
fuel is required to account for the approximate 9% losses in
electrical transmission and distribution (EIA, 2005), yielding a
total CO2 intensity of electricity of 883 kg CO2-eq per MWh
delivered to the consumer. Upstream impacts from the coal fuel
cycle, which account for methane and CO2 released during
mining, processing, and transportation are taken from Jaramillo
et al. (2007) as described in the previous section. Incorporating
the fuel cycle impacts, total life cycle emissions from a pulverized
coal plant are about 930 kg CO2-eq per MWh. These emissions
would be similar to a region where coal is the predominate fuel in
the electricity generation portfolio.
CO2 emissions from an IGCC w/ CCS plant assume a 32% plant
efficiency (due to the additional energy required for CO2 capture
and storage) (Rubin et al., 2004), and assumes 80% of the CO2
emissions from combustion are recovered and sequestered.
Electricity at the IGCC w/ CCS plant gate has an emissions factor
of 195 kg CO2-eq per MWh. Including the upstream fuel cycle and
transmission losses as above, total life cycle emissions from an
IGCC w/ CCS plant at the wall outlet are about 275 kg CO2-eq per
MWh. These emissions would be similar to an electricity portfolio
containing some fossil fuels but predominately low-carbon
generation sources.
For electrical efficiency of the PHEV20, this analysis uses 5 km
per kWh required at the wall plug, as used in the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI) report (EPRI, 2007). This figure includes
battery and charger losses, while CO2-eq from electrical transmis-
sion and distribution losses are included in electricity assump-
tions above. Recent research has modeled PHEV electrical
efficiency exceeding this EPRI value, even when the effects of
battery weight are included (Shiau et al., 2009). Since actual
electrical efficiency for PHEVs will vary with vehicle and driving
characteristics, terrain and other factors, we assume 5 km per
kWh for the PHEV20 and 4.8 km/kWh for the PHEV60 to account
for degradation due to additional battery weight. If electrical
efficiency achieved exceeds these values, GHGs from PHEVs would
be further reduced.
3.2. Impacts from gasoline
Life cycle GHG factors from gasoline are used in estimating
impacts from the gasoline portion of plug-in hybrid travel. A
description of the well-to-wheel life cycle GHG emissions of
petroleum-based gasoline was presented in the CTL liquid
sections and it is summarized again here: gasoline has a
combustion emissions factor of 2.31 kg CO2-eq per liter (HHV)
(EPA, 2006c). Using the GREET 1.7 model, upstream emissions
from petroleum extraction, refining, and transportation result in
an additional 0.59 kg CO2-eq per liter (Wang et al., 2007).
PHEV20 s are assumed to have an average gasoline fuel economy
similar to a Toyota Prius, 19.1 km per liter (EPA, 2006a), while
PHEV60 s are assumed to have slightly reduced fuel economy
(18.4 km per liter) due to additional battery weight (Shiau et al.,
2009). The conventional sedan is assumed to have a fuel economy
of 14.5 km per liter (DOE-EPA, 2007).
3.3. Vehicle and battery impacts
While CTL fuels could be used within existing vehicles, PHEVs
require additional vehicle components, principally the storage
battery, to enable operation. Hence, to compare life cycle GHGs,
emissions from the vehicle life and from lithium-ion battery
manufacturing for PHEVs are included. To estimate the vehicle
cycle impacts from PHEVs, we begin with the HEV impacts
(without the hybrid battery) reported in the GREET 2.7 model
(Burnham et al., 2008) of 28 g CO2-eq per km (assuming a vehicle
life of 240,000 km). We add to this an impact of 120 kg CO2-eq per
kWh of lithium-ion storage battery (Samaras and Meisterling,
2008). The 20 km battery has an impact of about 3 g CO2-eq per
km and the 60 km battery has an impact of 9 g CO2-eq per km, if
the battery lasts the 240,000 km life of the vehicle. If the battery
required replacement before the end of the vehicle life, impacts
would scale with each replacement. Via informal discussions with
automobile manufacturers, it is desired to warranty PHEV
batteries for at least 10 years, so it is envisioned that PHEV
batteries would either last the life of the vehicle or be replaced
once. Multiple replacements would be necessary to measurably
affect the life cycle GHGs from PHEVs.
3.4. Life cycle GHG emissions from plug-in hybrids
The average annual percentage of travel powered by electricity
is required to estimate life cycle emissions from a plug-in hybrid.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Jaramillo et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695
The National Household Travel Survey performed by the US
Department of Transportation in 2001 estimated that about 63%
of vehicle km traveled occur on vehicles traveling less than 50 km
per day (USDOT, 2004). To determine the fraction of vehicle travel
powered by electricity or gasoline, the percentages resulting from
the cumulative distribution function of daily vehicle km traveled
constructed in Samaras and Meisterling are used (Samaras and
Meisterling, 2008). The distribution was constructed with data
from the National Household Travel Survey (USDOT, 2004) and
estimates electricity would power about 34% of average annual
vehicle travel for a PHEV with a 20 km electric range, assuming
vehicles are charged once per day. For the 60 km electric range,
electricity would power about 68% of the average annual vehicle
travel. Applying the electricity emissions factor to 34% and 68% of
annual average travel and gasoline emissions factors to the
remaining 66% and 32%, life cycle emissions from PHEVs are
estimated.
4. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicle method
A vehicle powered by a hydrogen fuel cell is about 2.4 times
more efficient (tank-to-wheel) than the average current gasoline-
powered vehicle (DOE, 2003). It is estimated that these vehicles
can travel 80 km per kg of hydrogen (Colella et al., 2005; Wipke et
al., 2008). Life cycle GHG emissions for hydrogen-FCVs include
impacts from upstream coal mining, hydrogen production, and
hydrogen distribution. There are no GHG emissions from the use
at the FCV itself. The impacts from the vehicle life cycle are also
included.
Hydrogen for FCVs can be produced from a variety of primary
energy sources. One option is to produce hydrogen from coal via
coal gasification. In this process, solid coal is gasified to produce
syngas, which is a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and
other hydrocarbons. The syngas then goes through a shift reactor
to produce additional hydrogen by reacting carbon monoxide and
steam (DOE, 2003). Table 2 shows the inputs and outputs of the
process.
GHG emissions from coal gasification occur both at the plant
and in the upstream stages during coal mining/processing/
transport and electricity generation (the life cycle emissions of
this electricity are included). Emission factors for both the
upstream components are the same as used for the CTL plant
calculations previously described. Emissions from the hydrogen
plant were calculated using a carbon balance for the plant with
the data provide in Table 2. CO2 emissions from the plant can be
reduced still further because the CO2 can relatively easily be
captured for sequestration or other uses (DOE, 2003). According to
GREET, CCS at the gasification plant requires 100 kWh of
electricity per tonne of CO2 captured (Wang et al., 2007). The
mine-to-plant emission factor for the high-emissions scenario (no
CCS, high carbon electricity) is 135 tonnes CO2-eq per TJ of
hydrogen. With 80% CCS and a low-carbon electricity source, the
mine-to-plant emissions would be 41 tonnes CO2-eq per TJ of
hydrogen.
Table 2
Coal gasification plant inputs and outputs (DOE, 2003).
Coal gasification plant inputs
Coal (tonnes/day) 2700
Purchased electricity (MWh/day) 440
Coal gasification plant outputs
Hydrogen (tonnes/day) 345
Sulfur (tonnes/day) 73
Slag (15% water) (tonnes/day) 430
2693
Table 3
Life cycle emission factors of primary fuels used during transport stages.
Fuel Life cycle emission Adapted from
factor (g CO2-eq/MJ)
Distillate fuel 86.1 Wang et al. (2007)
Residual fuel 91.4 Wang et al. (2007)
Domestic natural gas 59.1 Jaramillo et al. (2007)
Emissions from transporting hydrogen need to be added in
order to obtain a mine-to-wheel emission factor for hydrogen-
powered FCV. Hydrogen can be transported in pipelines as a gas or
by a combination of rail and truck as a cryogenic liquid. Emissions
were calculated for both cases, using default distance assumptions
and emission factors from the GREET model (Wang et al., 2007).
For pipeline transport, the hydrogen must be compressed at the
plant before it is transported 1210 km to the refueling station
(Wang et al., 2007). The energy intensity of this compression is
81,100 MJ per TJ of hydrogen. It is assumed that this energy is
provided by electricity (Wang et al., 2007). The energy intensity of
the pipeline transport is 2.2 MJ per tonne-kilometer (MJ/tonne-
km). Residual fuel oil and hydrogen each provide 30% of this
energy, and electricity provides the remaining 40% (Wang et al.,
2007). As done when calculating the emissions from CTL
transport, the life cycle emissions of the primary fuels used in
hydrogen distribution are included (as reported in Table 3). The
mine-to-wheel emission factors for hydrogen transported via
pipeline are then found to be 166 and 47 tonnes CO2-eq per TJ of
hydrogen for the high-emissions and low-emissions scenarios,
respectively.
The liquefaction of hydrogen for rail and truck transport is an
energy-intensive process. Hydrogen would be liquefied at the
plant, transported 1300 km to a city by rail, and then 48 km to the
refueling station by truck (Wang et al., 2007). It is assumed that
hydrogen liquefaction would be done using electricity and has an
energy intensity of 410,000 MJ per TJ of hydrogen (Wang et al.,
2007). Rail transport is assumed to have an energy intensity of
0.23 MJ/tonne-km, which is provided by diesel fuel (Wang et al.,
2007). Finally, truck transport is assumed to have an energy
intensity of 4.5 MJ/tonne-km, also provided by diesel fuel (Wang
et al., 2007). The energy intensity of truck transport includes the
energy used when the trucks return empty from the refueling
station to the rail unloading station. The mine-to-wheel emission
factors for hydrogen transported via liquid hydrogen distribution
are then found to be 250 and 65 tonnes CO2-eq per TJ of hydrogen
for the high-emissions and low-emissions scenarios, respectively.
These emissions (in tonnes CO2-eq per TJ) were then converted
to km CO2-eq per km using the HHV energy content for hydrogen,
0.14 TJ per tonne, and a FCV efficiency of 80 km per kg of hydrogen
(Colella et al., 2005; Wipke et al., 2008).
As for all other fuel/vehicle pathways, the impacts from the life
of a FCV were included in this study. The vehicle cycle impacts
from the FCV are, 36 g CO2-eq per km, assuming a vehicle life of
240,000 km (Burnham et al., 2008).
5. Results and discussion
Fig. 2 shows the life cycle GHG emissions for conventional
sedans and hybrids using petroleum-based and CTL-gasoline, for
conventional sedans using petroleum-based and CTL-diesel, for
PHEVs, and for hydrogen-FCVs. The functional unit is g of CO2-eq
per km traveled in each vehicle type. This figure shows the
range between the high-emissions scenario (represented by the
right end point in the bar) and a low-emissions scenario
(represented by the left end point in the bar). For CTL and FCVs,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2694 P. Jaramillo et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695
CombPlot_2
Hydrogen FCV - liquified
Hydrogen FCV - pipeline
PHEV (60 km electric range)
PHEV (20 km electric range)
CTL-Diesel (conventional)
CTL-Gasoline (conventional)
CTL-Gasoline (hybrid)
Current petroleum-based gasoline (hybrid)
Current petroleum-based gasoline (conventional)
Current petroleum-based diesel
0 50
Life Cycle GHG Emissions (g CO2-eq / km)
Fig. 2. Comparing life cycle GHG emission of petroleum-based fuels and coal-based fuels. Bars depict ranges of best-case (left end point) to worst-case (right end point)
scenarios for using coal as a transportation fuel for different technologies, including emissions from fuel-cycles and vehicle-cycles.
the high-emission scenario assumes that there is no carbon
capture and sequestration and that the electricity used through-
out the life cycle has a life cycle emission factor of 950 kg CO2-eq
per MWh. For PHEVs, the high-emissions scenario assumes that
the electricity is generated using bituminous coal in a pulverized
coal power plant without CCS. For CTL and FCVs, the low-emission
scenario shown in Fig. 2 assumes that there is 80% CCS at the
production plants and that the electricity used throughout the life
cycle comes from a low-carbon source with a life cycle emission
factor of 200 kg CO2-eq per MWh. For PHEVs, the low-emissions
scenario assumes that the electricity is generated using bitumi-
nous coal in an IGCC power plant with 80% CCS.
CTL-gasoline and CTL-diesel in the high-emissions scenario
could increase vehicle emissions by 50–90% compared to current
petroleum-based gasoline in a conventional vehicle. Hydrogen
FCVs in the high-emissions scenario could also increase
vehicle emissions by more than 100%. PHEVs on the other hand
could, in the high-emission scenario, decrease the annual
vehicle emissions by 6–16% compared to current petroleum-
based gasoline in a conventional vehicle. But because PHEVs are
charged solely with electricity generated from coal in the high-
emissions scenario, they would increase vehicle emissions by
7–21% compared to hybrid vehicles. It is also interesting to note
that using petroleum-based diesel instead of petroleum-based
gasoline would reduce the GHG emissions by about 15% and
petroleum gasoline in a hybrid would reduce emissions by about
20%. This is due to higher efficiencies in the diesel and hybrid
vehicles.
In the low-emissions scenario, a CTL-diesel-powered vehicle
could slightly reduce emissions compared to petroleum-based
gasoline in a conventional vehicle, due to higher vehicle efficiency.
CTL-gasoline in a conventional vehicle would increase emissions
by more than 5%. If CTL-gasoline was used in a hybrid car (like the
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Prius), an emission reduction of about 15% could be observed. A
larger reduction (about 20%) could be obtained by simply using
petroleum-based gasoline in the same hybrid car.
PHEVs could, in this low-emission scenario reduce emissions
by 36–46% compared to petroleum-based gasoline in a conven-
tional vehicle and by 18–31% compared to a hybrid vehicle.
The results for hydrogen-FCVs are very interesting. We see that
in the high-emissions scenario FCV vehicles could have signifi-
cantly higher emissions than a vehicle powered with current
petroleum-based gasoline. In the low-emission scenario, a FCV
could reduce emissions by 35–50% compared to a conventional
vehicle. The reason for this considerable decrease is that not only
are we assuming 80% CCS in this low-emissions scenario, but the
electricity used at the hydrogen plant, and the electricity used to
compress/transport the hydrogen is assumed to be generated with
a low-carbon source. This scenario is probably not very realistic
but it is presented here to show what a most-optimistic scenario
would look like and how it would compare to the most-optimistic
scenario for CTL fuels.
CTL-gasoline could be used in a PHEV. If the high-emissions
CTL-gasoline were used, this PHEV would have higher life cycle
emissions than PHEVs that use petroleum-based gasoline, as the
life cycle GHG emissions of a liter of CTL-gasoline are significantly
higher (5.5 kg CO2-eq per liter vs. 2.9 kg CO2-eq per liter). If the
low-emissions CTL-gasoline were used, the life cycle annual
emissions of the PHEV would be very similar to the emissions a
PHEV fueled with petroleum-based gasoline. The reason for this
similar result is that the life cycle emissions of a liter of CTL-
gasoline produced in the low-emissions scenario and petroleum-
based gasoline are approximately the same (3 kg CO2-eq per liter).
PHEVs look more promising as a pathway for reduction of GHG
emissions if coal were to be used to power transportation. Even if
coal electricity without CCS is used, plug-in hybrids reduce GHG
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
P. Jaramillo et al. / Energy Policy 37 (2009) 2689–2695
emissions by 6–16% compared to conventional gasoline
vehicles. This demonstrates the worst case for PHEVs, as GHGs
would be lower in an electricity portfolio that included other
generation technologies, and further reduced with a low-carbon
electricity portfolio. Coal-based hydrogen and CTL fuels, on the
other hand, would likely increase the emissions associated with
transportation fuels. Battery technologies are difficult to predict,
but even when emissions from current battery production are
included, PHEVs result in substantially lower emissions than
CTL pathways in conventional automobiles and high-emissions
hydrogen-FCVs.
Enhancing energy security is the main argument in favor of
policies supporting CTL and coal-based hydrogen developments,
as these fuels would help the US decrease its demand for
foreign sources of oil. Because of concerns regarding climate
change and the high greenhouse gas emissions associated with
conventional coal use, policies to encourage pathways that
utilize coal for transportation should seek to reduce GHGs
compared to petroleum fuels. We find that PHEVs could also help
the US achieve energy security objectives through reduced
petroleum use while also reducing GHG emissions. Since, about
34% of passenger vehicle travel occurs on vehicles traveling less
than 20 km per day (USDOT, 2004), PHEV with a 20 km electric
range could displace up to 34% of gasoline use in passenger
vehicle travel each year. The potential for gasoline displacement
increases with reduced distances between PHEV charging (enabling
a larger fraction of km powered by electricity) and also with PHEVs
with higher electric ranges (Shiau et al., 2009). While major
infrastructure investments would be necessary for hydrogen
distribution, the existing electrical grid could, at a minimum,
accommodate the first set of PHEV adopters (Kintner-Meyer et al.,
2006; Lemoine et al., 2008) while electricity infrastructure is
improved over time. Additionally, the reduced liquid fuel require-
ments of PHEVs could leverage limited next generation biofuel
resources and further reduce gasoline demand (Samaras and
Meisterling, 2008). Finally, PHEVs could serve as a transition
technology to FCVs as fuel cell technology matures (Suppes, 2006)
and as decisions regarding potential hydrogen infrastructure are
analyzed. For these reasons, PHEVs are better suited than CTL fuels
or coal-based hydrogen to simultaneously assist with the goals of
enhancing energy security and reducing GHG emissions in the
passenger transportation sector.
Acknowledgments
Jaramillo and Wakeley acknowledge the support from the US
National Science Foundation (Grant no. 0628084). Jaramillo also
acknowledges support from the Pennsylvania Infrastructure
Technology Alliance, and the Blue Moon Fund. Wakeley acknowl-
edges the support from the Steinbrenner Institute for Environ-
mental Education. Jaramillo, Samaras, and Wakeley acknowledge
support from the Teresa Heinz Scholars for Environmental
Research Program. Samaras and Meisterling were supported by
the Climate Decision Making Center, which has been created
through a cooperative agreement between the National Science
Foundation (SES-0345798) and the Carnegie Mellon University.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this material
are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
these organizations. The authors thank H. Scott Matthews and W.
Michael Griffin for helpful discussions.
2695
References
Bechtel, 1993. Baseline Design/Economic for Advanced Fischer-Tropsch Techno-
logy. National Technical Information Service, San Francisco, CA (US Depart-
ment of Commerce).
Bradley, T.H., Frank, A.A., 2009. Design, demonstrations and sustainability impact
assessments for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 13, 115–128.
Burnham, A., Wang, M., Wu, Y., 2008. GREET 2.8 Transportation Vehicle-Cycle
Model. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL.
Colella, W.G., Jacobson, M.Z., Golden, D.M., 2005. Switching to a US hydrogen fuel
cell vehicle fleet: the resultant change in emissions, energy use, and
greenhouse gases. Journal of Power Sources 150, 150–181.
Davis, S.C., Diegel, S.W., 2006. Transportation Energy Data Book, 25th ed. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
DOE, 2003. Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization. US Department
of Energy. DE-AC26-99FT40342. (Subtask 1.7, Coal to Hydrogen Plant).
DOE, 2007. Preliminary Petroleum Marketing Annual, in: EIA (Ed.). Energy
Information Administration.
DOE, 2009. Annual Energy Outlook-Early Release, Washington DC.
DOE-EPA, 2007. Vehicle Fuel Economy Guide. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 2007. H.R. 6, One Hundred and
Tenth United States Congress.
EIA, 2005. Annual Energy Review 2004. US Department of Energy.
EPA, 2006a. Fuel economy labeling of motor vehicles: Revisions to improve
calculation of fuel economy estimates.
EPA, 2006b. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990–2004. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 2006c. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2004. US
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA, 2008. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2006.
Office of Global Warming, Washington D.C.
EPRI, 2007. Environmental assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
volume 1: Nationwide greenhouse gas emissions. Palo Alto, CA.
IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of
Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York
USA.
Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W.M., Matthews, H.S., 2007. comparative life cycle air
emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity
generation. Environmental Science and Technology 41, 6290–6296.
Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W.M., Matthews, H.S., 2008. Comparative analysis of the
production costs and life-cycle GHG emissions of FT-liquid fuels from coal and
natural gas. Environmental Science and Technology 42, 7559–7565.
Kintner-Meyer, M., Schneider, K., Pratt, R., 2006. Impacts Assessment of Plug-in
Hybrid Vehicles on Electric Utilities and Regional US Power Grids. Part 1:
Technical Analysis. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Kromer, M.A., Heywood, J.B., 2007. Electric powertrains: opportunities
and challenges in the US light-duty vehicle fleet. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, LFEE
2007-03 RP.
Lemoine, D.M., Kammen, D.M., Farrell, A.E., 2008. An innovation policy agenda for
commercially competitive plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Environmental
Research Letters 014003.
National-Research-Council, 2007. Coal: Research and Development to Support
National Energy Policy, in: NRC (Ed.). The National Academies.
Rubin, E.S., Rao, A.B., Chen, C., 2004. Comparative Assessments of Fossil Fuel Power
Plants with CO2 Capture and Storage, Proceedings of 7th International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT-7), Vancouver,
Canada.
Samaras, C., Meisterling, K., 2008. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas
emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: Implications for policy. Environmental
Science And Technology 42, 3170–3176.
Shiau, N., Samaras, C., Hauffe, R., Michalek, J.J., 2009. Impact of battery weight and
charging patterns on the economic and environmental benefits of plug-in
hybrid vehicles. Energy Policy in press, doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.040.
Suppes, G.J., 2006. Roles of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the transition to the
hydrogen economy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31, 353–360.
Toyota, 2007. The All New Corolla. Toyota.
US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Energy Policy Discussion Drafts
Released May 17, 2007.
USDOT, 2004. 2001 National Household Travel Survey. US Department of
Transportation.
Wang, M., Wu, Y., Elgowainy, A., 2007. GREET 1.7 Fuel-Cycle Model for
Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies. Argonne National Laboratory,
Argonne, IL.
Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Garbak, J., 2008. Fuel Cell Vehicle Infrastructure
Learning Demonstration: Status and Results. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory.